The Case Against Merging Developers

While Take-Two and EA have entered secret talks about a possible merger, the rest of us are left to debate whether or not such a joining of forces is actually a good idea. If you happen to be Don Reisinger over at CNET, then you are strictly against this sort of marriage. In his latest post, Resinger points out:
Consolidation in the video game industry could ruin its ability to offer innovation and compelling titles. Of course, the developers claim that consolidation will give companies the ability to offer more compelling titles, but I just don't see it.
I think what Resinger fails to point out is that mergers and acquisitions have two different connotations. If EA aquires Take-Two in hopes of milking the Grand Theft Auto franchise until there is nothing left of it then we've got problems. If however both companies come to acceptable terms with a merger, Take-Two could still retain control over their properties while gaining the backing of EA who let's face it, has a massive stake in the industry. Resinger also sees a sequel heavy future for the companies:
A quick glance at EA's upcoming lineup of games tells you everything you need to know about consolidation. Aside from Spore, it's dominated by sequels and titles that will do little but provide the same basic experience we've come to expect from today's games.
The issue of sequels and franchises has more to do with the cost of game development versus the return on the investment through sales. EA tends to release new iterations of classic franchises every year, but even smaller developers are guilty of the same crime. If anything, more money being thrown around can lead to a greater ability to develop new IP's using money from their existing properties.
How do you guys feel about developers joining together? Will this push the industry forward or keep it from evolving beyond this point?
Developer consolidation is bad for the video game industry [CNET]







Post a comment